US: Fisheries subsidies negotiations alive and kicking… at the TPP

Several articles in the Japanese press report on Japan’s (and Canada’s) alleged positions in on fisheries subsidies rules in the framework of the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations.

Contrary to the WTO, where negotiating positions are made public by way of written submissions, there is little information about the exact content of the proposed rules and of the positions of the participating countries.

From the articles it appears that Japan is opposing proposals by key TPP players (US, New Zealand, Australia) to introduce far reaching prohibitions on fisheries subsidies. The online article of 9 June 2013 by “The Japan Times” mentions that:

"If the interdiction is implemented by the 11 current TPP member states, the government will call for its scope to be limited to subsidies that would unquestionably lead to overfishing, as the Japanese fishing industry heavily depends on this source of funding, according to the sources.

The government’s position also reflects concern the ban may include subsidies for the construction of ports and other infrastructure, hindering recovery efforts in coastal regions where the 2011 earthquake and tsunami ravaged local fishing industries.

But the issue is far from a done deal, as differences remain between countries including the United States, Australia and New Zealand, which are hoping to protect the environment and fishing resources through the measure, and other TPP countries that are still opposed.

Japan will become the 12th member of the TPP negotiations during the next round from July 15 to 25 in Malaysia, but it has yet to obtain official documents detailing the discussions to date. The TPP members aim to agree on a Pacific Rim trade liberalization framework by the end of the year.

The information the government has collected so far on the subsidy ban from participating countries points to the possibility of the measure being comprehensive with only a limited number of exceptions, such as subsidies for installing distress signal equipment, the sources said.

A number of officials in Tokyo fear such a ban among the TPP nations could hand the fishing industries of non-member countries such as China and South Korea the advantage over Japan’s."

It would be interesting to know whether the proposed prohibition apply in the same way to developed and developing TPP countries. At the WTO negotiations developing countries have consistently asked for wide ranging exceptions from subsidy prohibitions.

Also interesting to know is Canada’s position on this subject. The article refers to Canada as opposing the proposals by the US, New Zealand and Australia.

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/09/business/japan-to-oppose-fishing-subsidies-ban-in-tpp-trade-negotiations/#.UfTzWo1kMa8

NZ: Tim Groser's campaign against subsidies to fisheries (including fuel!) continues...now at the OECD

According to news articles in various media Mr Tim GROSER, New Zealand's Minister Responsible for International Climate Change Negotiations, will attend a two-day ministerial meeting of the OECD's Committee on the Environment that starts on 29 March 2012.

The press reports mention that "Mr Groser said he would use the meeting to emphasise New Zealand's ongoing contribution to global green growth, including through efforts to reform fossil fuel, and fisheries subsidies."

 
 This is an interesting development (see my previous posts on NZ and climate change negotiations and on subsidy notifications to the WTO).

Here is a link to the OECD website announcing the meeting:

http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,3746,en_21571361_40172921_40213579_1_1_1_1,00.html

And here links to the press articles:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10794924

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7770740.html

New Zealand: foreing vessels (and foreign subsidies?) and charter agreements

Some of my previous posts on NZ included a one titled "Domcumentary on NZ fishing practices" (15/08/2009).

New Zealand's authorities have taken these allegations very seriously and have launched a "Ministerial Inquiry into Foreign Charter Vessels" on these practices.

When going through some of the documents related to the inquiry and looking at the "nationality" of the vessels involved in the fishing operations (South Korea, Ukraine, Japan and Dominica) I wondered whether NZ companies where benefiting from subsidised fishing capacity, i.e. from vessels that would have been built with subsidies (investment susbsidies) and that would receive subsidies for operating costs (for example lower social security contributions) from the flag countries.

Perhaps readers have comments on this, i.e. the possible use of subsidised vessels, and its relation to WTO issues, such as the export of products that have benefited from subsidies (WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing measures).

 

Similarly to what the US vs. Canada softwoodlumber case highlighted, could we speak here of the "passing-through" of, say, a South Korean subsidy (for the construction of the vessel), to the NZ company operating the charter arrangement and exporting the product to a third country? Should counter-vailing measures be adopted, against whom should they be directed? Againts NZ or against South Korea?

Comments and views are welcome!

Here is the link to the page of the Fisheries Ministry's website with information on the inquiry:

http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Consultations/Ministerial+Inquiry+into+Foreign+Charter+Vessels/default.htm


And here the link to the "Nautical Blog" with a post on this issue (chartering in New Zealand):


http://nauticallog.blogspot.com/2011/04/holier-than-thou.html

NZ: interesting presentation by governement official on WTO negotiations

Here is the link to a presentation by a New Zealand's governement official on the WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies.

http://www.seafoodindustry.co.nz/f1690,84125/84125_Haike_Manning_WTO_Fisheries_Subsidies.pdf

NZ/WTO: Tim Groser on film stars and WTO fisheries subsidies negotiations

Some of the readers of this blog may remeber that on 1 February 2010 I wrote a post commenting Tim Groser’s speech in London on 8 December 2009 titled “Trade and Climate Change: A Negotiator's Perspective”.

In this speech Mr Groser, former Chair of the WTO’s negotiating group where fisheries subsidies are discussed, sets out his views on the dynamics of international negotiations. I can not resist the temptation to re-copy here some of the passages of his December 2009 speech.

"There will be film stars, vegans, people running around in polar bear suits. This is, ladies and gentlemen, international diplomacy in action. Is it likely to lead to anything useful?”

“Highly experienced and astute Secretariat officials, working closely with experienced negotiators from a number of countries, will be developing a text covering the key issues contained in the unmanageable draft legal text and on which firm political decisions are required - mitigation targets, financing in both the short and long term, capacity building and other key elements of the earlier Bali Action Plan.”

Well, Mr Groser revisited these subjects, i.e. the dynamics of international negotiations and the role of film starts, in his address to the international Food and Agriculture Trade Policy Council (IPC) Conference in Sao Paulo.

In this post I will comment Mr. Groser’s comments on the role film stars (or Hollywood) in international negotiations:

“We should be thankful for small mercies. With complete collapse staring us in the face, we salvaged at least the Copenhagen Accord. This was produced by a small group of Heads of Governments of some major countries, operating in an unplanned and one could say haphazard way.

They had no choice, and thank goodness they did take the initiative. However, it was a modest return from the investment of so much high-priced political talent - not to mention the pre-Copenhagen hype, based around the absurd negotiating scenario of ‘No Plan B'. I will leave to others to describe the contribution made by Hollywood film stars to the process. Rationality, one could say, was at a premium and we paid the price in terms of the mediocrity of the result.”

So, Mr Groser leaves to others to describe the contribution made by Hollywood film stars to the process. Thinking of what happens in the WTO fisheries subsidies negotiations I am sure that OCEANA will describe the contribution of film stars to these negotiations as very positive. They invited Ted Danson to come to Geneva (see my post of 31/10/2009 titled “WTO: fisheries subsidies and Hollywood under the same roof”) to persuade negotiators to rapidly conclude the Doha round so that an agreement could be reached in new fisheries subsidies rules.

By the way, that OCEANA values very much the role of film stars in WTO fisheries subsidies negotiations is also demonstrated by the fact that that he testified before a the US Senate Committee on Finance (Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness) on 14/07/2010 as OCEANA Board Member.

But Ted Danson is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the links of OCEANA with Hollwywood. Check OCEANA’s webapges on its SeaChange Summer Parties. The list of film actors is rather long.

A final comment on Ted Danson: interestingly Ted Danson joined the “Bored to Death” comedy television series. I hope he will not be “Bored to death” because of the lack of progress in the Doha negotiations.

What is not clear to me is what Mr. Groser meant with the closing sentence in the paragraph dealing with film stars: “Rationality, one could say, was at a premium and we paid the price in terms of the mediocrity of the result.” I can not believe Mr. Groser was speaking about fisheries subsidies negotiations. My reading is that he was talking about climate change negotiations only.

This is a first delivery in my comments on Ted Groser speech. There will be other posts especially on the part of the speech about why he considers the fisheries subsides negotiations as worthwhile.

Here are two links where readers will find Tim Groser’s speech:

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/address+international+food+and+agriculture+trade+policy+council+ipc+conference

http://business.scoop.co.nz/2010/10/27/address-to-food-agriculture-trade-policy-council/

WTO: fisheries subsidies should be part of the single undertaking...according to Barbados and New Zealand

Mining in the internet n the issue of fisheries subsidies negotiations I found an interesting interview that “Subsidy Watch” an electronic newsletter that provides news, commentary and analysis related to subsidies and sustainable development published in May 2009, in its issue 39.

The interviewed were Matthew A. Wilson, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Barbados to the United Nations and other International Organisations at Geneva and Alice Tipping, Second Secretary to the WTO for the New Zealand Permanent Mission in Geneva. According to Subsidy Watch “Japan and the European Commission were also asked to respond, but did not do so before our publishing deadline.” I wonder whether the US were also asked to respond to the questions.

The last question is about whether the WTO should stick to the single undertaking when it comes to fisheries subsidies negotiations. I copy hereunder the full question and the answers, highlighting the passages with references to fisheries subsidies staying in the single undertaking.

SW: What are the odds that the fisheries subsidies negotiations move to another venue if the WTO talks remain stalled for too long? In a related question, if the round as a whole does not progress in the near future, would you endorse having the fisheries negotiations ‘carved out’ so that they could proceed separately?

Barbados: I am confident that the Round will be completed. The talks are not stalled. We are still having meetings and negotiations and there is still much to discuss and agree to in the area of fisheries, so it is too early to begin looking at shifting the venue or carving out any negotiations for early harvest. The DDA is clear on the issue of the single undertaking, so all issues will have to be adopted by Ministers simultaneously. I do believe that, even in the unlikely event that we were not to finalise the negotiations on fisheries, the issue of sustainability, fisheries management and the developmental aspects of fisheries have been sufficiently ventilated over the past few years, especially by important NGOs such as the WWF, the ICTSD and OCEANA, that engagement on this issue would be continue. The key is for the FAO and Regional Fisheries Management Organizations to follow through on some of the issues being discussed at the WTO, even in the event that there is no formal agreement.

New Zealand: The WTO is the appropriate venue for multilateral negotiations on fisheries subsidies for two key reasons. First, the problem is as much economic and trade-related as it is environmental. Over a third of global fish production is traded internationally, making fish one of the most traded ‘agricultural’ commodities. Fish and fish products account for around 13 percent of global ‘agricultural’ trade. The World Bank and the FAO, in their 2008 report entitled “Sunken Billions”, estimate that the potential benefits of this trade are far less than they should be; the economic losses in the global marine fisheries industry, resulting from inefficiencies (including subsidies) and overfishing add up to US$50 billion per year— that’s US$1.5 trillion over the last 30 years.

Second, disciplines around fisheries subsidies should be derived from, and consistent with, existing disciplines around general subsidies. The WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures’ existing disciplines set a solid, multilaterally agreed legal framework for these trade measures, and the terminology and concepts involved have been interpreted and clarified by the dispute-settlement process over many years. It is the logical institutional and legal base from which to build a new set of disciplines on fisheries subsidies.

These negotiations provide a unique opportunity to create effective disciplines on fisheries subsidies that deplete fish stocks on which the livelihoods of vulnerable communities depend. The negotiations are an integral element of the Doha Development Agenda, and New Zealand believes the final disciplines should form part of the outcome of the Doha round as a whole.

Here is the link to the full text of the interview:

http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/subsidy-watch/analysis/the-wto-fisheries-negotiations-interviews-with-barbados-and-new-zealand

WTO - NZ: a former Chair of the WTO Negotiating Group on Rules on the workings of international negotiations

Mr Tim Groser, New Zealand's current Minister in charge of Trade was the very first Chair of the Negotiating Group that is dealing with new WTO for Fisheries Subsidies.

Mr Groser does not like to beat about the bush. He is someone who likes to speak things out, in all clarity. At least that is the impression I have got when reading one of the speeches he has recently delivered. I found in this post titled "Tim Groser on Border Tax Adjustments: "anti-dumping or CVD investigation on steroids" of the International Economic Law and Policy" Blog, which appears in "My blog list".

In this speech, given in London on 8/12/2009, i.e. just before the start of the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change, Mr Groser shares with the audience his personal views on how the above mentioned meeting could develop and the results it could yield.

In this post I will go through Mr Groser's talk by way of quoting some of the passages which I think could be related, in some way, to the ongoing WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies. After all the title of the speech is "Trade and Climate Change: A Negotiator's Perspective", so Mr Groser is discussing how he, as a negotiator for New Zealand, approaches the issue of Climate Change and the negotiations at the Copenhagen meeting.

Copenhagen: the Outlook

There will be literally thousands of international civil servants; hundreds of harassed security guards; a phalanx of the world's media interviewing delegates initially and finally interviewing each other. There will be businesses, lobbyists, a diverse range of NGOs with a vast universe of demands and agendas, some of which will be only loosely related to climate change.

There will be film stars, vegans, people running around in polar bear suits. This is, ladies and gentlemen, international diplomacy in action. Is it likely to lead to anything useful?

Comment: fisheries subsidies negotiations have not attracted as much attention as Climate Change talks, nevertheless there are a number of NGOs gravitating around the negotiations (e.g. WWF, OCEANA) and film stars (remember my post on the presence of Ted Danson in Geneva) have been "running around" to lobby negotiators. In this regard I always wonder why civil society organisations representing are not lobbying, at least in a visible manner, WTO negotiators in Geneva. Until now I have only seen reports of fishermen from the Philippines protesting against "fisheries liberalisation" (see my post of 20/12/2009).

I have spent thirty years negotiating international economic agreements. Most of them, contrary to popular opinion, and after massive political frustration and delays, do end up getting done - never perfectly of course, but usually in the right direction.

Comment: Mr Groser appears to be right in the sense that delays are part and parcel of international trade negotiations. Needless to say that the Doha Round is a good illustration of how delays do plague such undertakings. On the outcome of negotiations I can agree with Mr Groser with the fact that there can be "massive political frustration". This was the case for the EU in Copenhagen. Will it be the case (for the EU) on fisheries subsidies? I ask this question because the assertion on agreements (usually) ending up "in the right direction" is made by a negotiator representing New Zealand. I assume thus that for Mr Groser, should the Doha Round be concluded and an agreement reached on new rules for fisheries subsidies, it will end up in the right direction, at least for New Zealand.

But this is never achieved in one step and seldom in conformity with agreed 'road maps', or time-lines to which solemn Brownie oaths have been earlier pledged. A successful negotiation is always done incrementally by building up convergence and consensus first at the general, then increasingly specific, levels of detail.

Comment: Mr Groser appears to have participated in negotiations where results were reached by using a different approach than the one put forward by his successor in the Chair of the Negotating Group, Ambassador Valle, who did draw a Roadmap for the to move forward the negotiations on fisheries subsidies. Here what Tim Groser tells us about such “different approach”

Highly experienced and astute Secretariat officials, working closely with experienced negotiators from a number of countries, will be developing a text covering the key issues contained in the unmanageable draft legal text and on which firm political decisions are required - mitigation targets, financing in both the short and long term, capacity building and other key elements of the earlier Bali Action Plan.

He also gives us hints on the dangers that the “different approach” can entail and of the opportunities it can bring with it.

Extremism, or gross tactical misjudgements by certain Delegations, can still torpedo what could be a highly constructive step towards a full and ratifiable agreement at a subsequent point. This is not a time for people to start throwing their toys out of the cot. And if finally wisdom prevails, and we do get a solid set of politically binding decisions on key issues, our professional negotiators will then be able to re-engage in 2010 to complete the second, and one hopes, final step towards a far more solid agreement than Kyoto ever was.

This was Tim Groser, the first Chair of the WTO Rules Negotiating Group on Rules of the Doha Development Agenda, on how international negotiations are (or can be?) conducted.

The full speech can be found in these web pages:

http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/speech-groser-trade-and-climate-change-negotiator039s-perspective/5/32614

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/trade+and+climate+change+negotiator039s

NEW ZEALAND: documentary on NZ fishing practices

A documentary titled “The Great New Zealand Fishing Scandal” is making a lot of noise in that great fishing nation.

The main theme of the documentary, made by the investigative journalist Guy Henderson, are the fishing practices by foreign vessels that are allowed to harvest fish in NZ waters on behalf of domestic companies.

According to the New Zealand press the documentary shows foreign factory vessels (with foreign crews) chartered by New Zealand companies to catch fish under the quota (e.g. of orange roughy) of the latter.

Some of the comments made in the aforementioned press echo a certain degree of discontent, as such practices can result in New Zealanders being deprived of jobs in the fishing industry. Furthermore the documentary seems to point to an alleged lack of control on the operations of these foreign vessels.

New Zealand’s Maritime Union has asked for a Parliamentary investigation on this matter.

At any rate, New Zealand is a strong competitor in international trade in fisheries products. The New Zealand government has always contended that it does not provide subsidies to its fishing industry. It is thus to the credit of private operators that they try to do their utmost to lower their cost to remain competitive in the international markets, including by hiring foreign vessels that are less expensive to operate than domestic vessels.

I tried to find an official reaction to the documentary but without success. I would very much welcome if readers can provide me with information on a reaction from New Zealand’s authorities, or from NZ companies, to the documentary.

By the way, this documentary reminds me of a number of articles, back in 2006, about criticism by Maoris on proposal by the government to regulate the salaries paid in these foreign chartered vessels.

Here a few links on the contents of the documentary.

http://www.munz.org.nz/index.php/2009/08/05/inquiry-into-fishing-industry-needed/

http://www.documentarychannel.co.nz/synopsis?show=fd818130-8b17-4065-9f0e-42154b6248d3

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0907/S00133.htm

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0908/S00055.htm

http://newzealandconservative.blogspot.com/2009/08/new-zealands-third-world-fisheries.html

An interview (in MP3 format) with the maker of the documentary can be found here.

http://www.wammo.co.nz/2009/08/03/the-great-nz-fishing-scandal/

Information on NZ’s legislation concerning treatment of foreign chartered vessel crews can be found here:

http://www.immigration.govt.nz/community/stream/employ/employingtemporaryworkers/whatisrequired/nonzworkers/specialfields/foreignfishingcrews.htm

Here is a link to an article published in the “Australia and New Zealand Maritime Law Journal” Vol 23, No 1 (2009) titled “Modern Day Slavery: Employment Conditions For Foreign Fishing Crews In New Zealand Waters” written by Jennifer Ann Devlin.

https://maritimejournal.murdoch.edu.au/index.php/maritimejournal/article/view/82

And here is a link on Maori’s criticism to setting foreign crew wages at the same level as NZ‘s ones

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=104952

NEW ZEALAND: more questions and answers from NZ's WTO Trade Policy Review

Here is another question from the European Union to New Zealand.

The question touches upon New Zealand's restrictions on foreign investment in the fisheries sector and the criteria used to allow for such investment.

(the references to paragraphs relate to the Report prepared by the WTO Secretariat (WTO document WT/TPR/S/216 of 6 May 2009). The answers can be found in the Record of Meeting which took place on 10 and 12 June 2009 (WTO document WT/TPR/M/216/Add.1).

Q49 In paragraph 24 it is mentioned that "Fishing quotas and ACE may only be held by nationals of New Zealand or by majority-owned domestic companies; permission may be granted, under certain circumstances, by the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Finance, for an overseas person to hold a fishing quota in New Zealand (Chapter II(5))." Footnote 76 of Chapter II (page 32) mentions increased export receipts for New Zealand exporters among the factors for determining whether overseas investment in fishing quota is in the national interest. However the Fisheries Act 1996 in 4: Quota management system, 57.(4).(b) (C) mentions "the development of new export markets or increased export" as a factor for determining whether foreign investment is in the national interest. Does this imply that New Zealand would allow purchase of fishing quota by an overseas investor in exchange for trade concessions (e.g. import duty reductions) by the country to which the foreign investor belongs?

Answer:

No. Trade concessions by the government of the country of a potential foreign investor would not be relevant to a determination by Ministers to allow the purchase of fishing quota by an overseas investor.

Well, if NZ's government confirms that it does not practice "access-to-markets for access-to-the-ressource", I will believe it, even if the legal texts suggest something else.

NEW ZEALAND: questions on fisheries subsidies at NZ's WTO Trade Policy Review

Here are a number of questions by the European Union, and New Zealand's answers, at the 2009 Trade Policy Review. It concerns fuel subsidies:

(the references to paragraphs relate to the Report prepared by the WTO Secretariat (WTO document WT/TPR/S/216 of 6 May 2009). The answers can be found in the Record of Meeting which took place on 10 and 12 June 2009 (WTO document WT/TPR/M/216/Add.1).

Q50 In paragraph 26 it is mentioned that New Zealand introduced in September 2008 an emission trading scheme. According to publicly available information the fisheries sector is being treated differently than other sectors as will receive a free allocation of emission units covering 50% of the total of all eligible parties' 2005 emissions from the consumption of fuel. This free allocation will be provided each year from 2011 to 2013.

Furthermore, the official webpage explaining the functioning of the emission trading scheme mentions (see text hereunder) that this measure is a subsidy, for which one of the main raisons d'être is the fact that this sector is exposed to trade.

"Free allocation is being provided to various groups under the emissions trading scheme for a range of reasons. It's technically a subsidy, but it's a transitional measure only available to some emitters."

"The rationale for free allocation of emissions units to forestry and fishing is more that asset values are affected by introducing the emissions trading scheme, so allocation aims to achieve equity rather than deal with economic regrets. Having said this, there is an element of trade-exposure underpinning the rationale of providing free allocation to the fishing sector." (http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/ emissions-trading-scheme/questions-and-answers.html#fishing)

Could New Zealand confirm the above information?

Answer:

New Zealand can confirm that an amendment to the Climate Change Response Act 2002, passed in September 2008, introduced an emissions trading scheme. This scheme was designed as a key instrument to introduce, over time, a price on carbon across the New Zealand economy. The scheme covers all sectors and the six main greenhouse gases, and, as such, is one of the most comprehensive schemes of its kind in the world.

The current legislation contains provision for free allocation as a transitional measure to some sectors of the economy whose competitiveness may be at risk, due to uneven coverage and pricing of carbon across economies in the short term, resulting in carbon leakage. Partial and transitional free allocation is envisaged for some sectors, including forestry, industry, agriculture and fishing, to adapt to this domestic policy measure of emissions pricing in the New Zealand emissions trading scheme (ETS).

We note that other emissions trading schemes, including the EU ETS, also involve the use of free allocation. The legislation is currently being reviewed by a special Parliamentary select committee, the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Select Committee.

Some of the information contained in the website quoted was incorrect, and does not reflect the official view of the New Zealand Government.

Q51 Given that most of New Zealand's fish production is intended for export, such subsidy can be considered a "de facto" export subsidy.

Answer:

We disagree. There remains considerable uncertainty internationally about the application of WTO rules to measures such as free allocation under an emissions trading scheme, which is designed explicitly to enable countries to meet multilateral climate change objectives. These provisions simply level the playing field to avoid a distortion from the application of domestic policy to meet multilateral objectives. This is consistent with emerging international practice to provide a level of transitional assistance under an ETS.

Q52 Has New Zealand carried out an analysis demonstrating that the cost of the emissions trading scheme cannot be passed to customers (most of them third country importers) of New Zealand's fishing industry?

Answer:

New Zealand is a price taker on international markets: the Emissions Trading Scheme will not change this.

Q53 Has New Zealand quantified the financial benefit for New Zealand's exporters of the aforementioned subsidy?

Answer:

There will be no net financial benefit to New Zealand's fishing industry resulting from his transitional measure. The industry will face higher fuel costs given the inclusion of iquid fuels in the ETS. The free allocation will offset only a portion of those costs for a limited period of time.

Here is the link to the WTO website with all the information on the Trade Policy Review of New Zealand.

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tpr_e.htm

WTO: Director General Pascal Lamy on Fisheries Subsidies (4) in New Zealand!

Here is an extract from another speech that Director General Lamy gave in New Zealand (the champion of the "Friends of Fish"). Fisheries subsdies could not possibly be left out, as one of the main reason to conclude the Doha Round.

As an island nation with important marine resources, New Zealand is very active in working for stronger disciplines on fisheries subsidies, an area where economic and environmental concerns can be clearly complementary. Here too the WTO negotiations provide the only effective means of securing legally enforceable international agreement. This is another important New Zealand -and global — interest that would be threatened by failure to conclude the Round.

The speech was delivered on 6 March 2009 to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce. Also note that the extract concerns the "prepared text" as mentioned in the WTO website. Here is the link to the text:

http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl120_e.htm

NEW ZEALAND: fishing rights at no cost for Maoris. Is this a subsidy?

Hereunder is an extract of the Minutes of Meeting on the WTO's TRADE POLICY REVIEW of NEW ZEALAND. The meeting took place on 12 and 14 May 2003.

The document can be found at the WTO's website. It has the reference T/TPR/M/115/Add.1 of 17 June 2003.

I leave to the reader to judge on whether this allocation of fishing rights is a subsidy or not.

IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR; (2) Agriculture; (v) Fisheries

34. (para 23) The report states: "[…] The TAC is set in order to ensure that the greatest yield can be achieved over time while maintaining the stock's productive capacity; in addition, where non-commercial users are involved (such as Maori or recreational fishers), a quantity of stock is set aside for them before the commercial catch (TACC) is established. […] When a new species is introduced to the QMS, 20% of the catch of all ITQs is allocated to Maori. The remaining quota is distributed amongst people holding commercial fishing permits for each species, based on how much they caught during the "qualifying years". Any remaining ITQ may be tendered off by the Crown." According to information available from the Ministry of Fisheries (www.fish.govt.nz/) and "Te Ohu Kai Moana (TOKM)", in English "Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission" (www.tokm.co.nz/), Maori are involved in commercial fisheries in New Zealand. The web site of the TOKM states that “assets held by the Fisheries Commission, Maori currently own or control more than 33 percent of New Zealand’s commercial fishing quota.” This web site provides also information from which it appears that the “Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission” currently owns a substantial share in the New Zealand’s companies active in commercial fisheries.

35. Could New Zealand confirm that the 20% allocation for Maori on new species entering the QMS (Quota Management System) is made at no cost?

Answer - The 20% allocation to Maori is made at no cost. It is the result of the settlement of Maori fisheries claims against the Crown in 1992, and the passing of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.

36. Could New Zealand provide information on the value, in money terms, of the yearly quota allocations to Maori for commercial fishing purposes, for the years 1998-2002?

Answer - The current value of the fishing quota allocations held by Maori is approximately NZ$700 million.

NEW ZEALAND: "An emissions trading subsidy for fishing?"

This is the titel of a post in the "Frogblog", i.e. the blog of the Green Party of Aotaeroa New Zealand. The post is in fact a reaction to a post in "The Hive", a blog dedicated to politics in New Zealand.

I will come back on this issue which I find most interesting mainly because it concerns a country that has always fought for the abolition of fish subsidies.

Hereunder are the links to the posts of the "Frogblog" and "The Hive".

http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/08/31/an-emissions-trading-subsidy-for-fishing/

http://wellingtonhive.blogspot.com/2008/08/greens-party-to-ultimate-corruption.html

Here is also a link to the government's website giving information over the emissions scheme:

http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/emissions-trading-scheme/questions-and-answers.html#fishing